Ad JS

Collapse

Leaderboard

Collapse

Leaderboard Tablet

Collapse

Leaderboard Mobile

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When is sexual discrimination legal in hiring?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • When is sexual discrimination legal in hiring?

    The title sums it up. So much for the best qualified candidates. When can a agency announce they are going to be hiring, but only women can apply? I have seen announcements where they say they especially encourage female applicants but never female only with no avenue for men to apply. Is there some legal criteria for something like this? Anyone have any personal experience with this?

  • #2
    I can't imagine that there's any way a department could get away with limiting hiring to just females unless they could somehow justify that the position, by its very nature, requires a female. EEOC guidelines on discrimination include discrimination by sex...violating them would not just be begging for a lawsuit, but potentially for investigation by the Federal Government.
    "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
    -Friedrich Nietzsche

    Comment


    • #3

      I know one Sheriff's office that hires FEMALE Corrections Officers and can do it legally due to the job description. They hire both male and female deputies for the jail but also hire Female Correctional officers to fill in the gaps in the female unit. The Female Deputies can work the entire jail but the CO's only work in the female unit

      That agency does NOT hire MALE Correctional officers


      When I worked State Corrections there were many jobs that females couldn't work due to strip searches ( and the opposite in the female prison) but that was a position not a job. The "bid"for those positions were labeled MALE ONLY if it involved a strip search on a regular basis (Visiting Room Dress out or Wagon gate)
      Last edited by Iowa #1603; 06-14-2018, 09:32 PM.
      Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

      My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Iowa #1603 View Post
        I know one Sheriff's office that hires FEMALE Corrections Officers and can do it legally due to the job description. They hire both male and female deputies for the jail but also hire Female Correctional officers to fill in the gaps in the female unit. The Female Deputies can work the entire jail but the CO's only work in the female unit

        That agency does NOT hire MALE Correctional officers


        When I worked State Corrections there were many jobs that females couldn't work due to strip searches ( and the opposite in the female prison) but that was a position not a job. The "bid"for those positions were labeled MALE ONLY if it involved a strip search on a regular basis (Visiting Room Dress out or Wagon gate)
        Funny you mention that. I use to work for a men's state prison that only would hire male C/O. They were sued in the late 80s by a women's group and they won the suit so they could work in the prison. Today in that prison women regularly strip the men in the SHU whenever they leave their cells but no officer is ever left alone with any inmate. The officers always work in pairs for safety. The women can even participate in cell extractions if they are fit and choose to do so.
        Last edited by SHU; 06-14-2018, 10:17 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Just tell them you identify as female. They can't discriminate against you.
          Now go home and get your shine box!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Bing_Oh View Post
            I can't imagine that there's any way a department could get away with limiting hiring to just females unless they could somehow justify that the position, by its very nature, requires a female. EEOC guidelines on discrimination include discrimination by sex...violating them would not just be begging for a lawsuit, but potentially for investigation by the Federal Government.
            The justification appears to be they are doing it for the sake of "diversity". They are not claiming there is a specific need in the duties which require this measure. Just diversity.
            Last edited by SHU; 06-15-2018, 09:11 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              It can be done to remedy a proven practice of discrimination and help restore parity in the workforce.

              For example, up until around 1972 or 1973, the State of California flat out refused to accept applications from females for state peace officer positions. There was a disclaimer on exam announcements for such positions that read, "Due to the inherent dangers associated with the duties of a peace officer, applications from females will not be accepted for this position."

              In order to remedy the problem, hiring preference based on gender was given in many state law enforcement agencies for some time thereafter.

              There is an EEOC process for implementing the remedy, but I am unfamiliar with what it is. Again, prior discrimination must first be proven.

              There is also another circumstance, but I don't believe it applies to your situation.

              Previously I've mentioned hiring using the Rule of Three, where the appointing authority can fill a vacancy taking anyone from the top three scores on the hiring list, irrespective of which one is highest. Traditionally, it is illegal to discriminate in hiring because of race, religion, gender, etc, however, a many years old California court ruling held that does not apply with respect to the Rule of Three, that any decision made under that rule is completely discretionary on the appointing authority and the basis for a Rule of Three selection need not be disclosed.

              The case involved three high scorers being considered for promotion, two of whom worked in the same office. Of those two, one was a male, the other was a female. The female, who scored lower than the male, was selected for the promotion. The male knew the person who decided who would get promoted and inquired why the decision was made to promote the lower scoring applicant over the higher scoring one. The response was that they based the decision solely on wanting to see more female supervisors in the unit.

              The male sued, alleging he, as the higher scoring applicant, had been discriminated against because of his gender. The court ruled that under the Rule of Three, discretion the part of the appointing authority is absolute, even to the point of allowing them to base their decision solely on a factor that might otherwise be considered unlawful discrimination. The court further ruled that because the Rule of Three is discretionary, the basis for making any decisions under that rule need not be disclosed.
              Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SHU View Post

                The justification appears to be they are doing it for the sake of "diversity". They are not claiming their is a specific need in the duties which require this measure. Just diversity.
                Sex Discrimination & Work Situations

                The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

                Sex Discrimination & Employment Policies/Practices

                An employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of sex, can be illegal if it has a negative impact on the employment of people of a certain sex and is not job-related or necessary to the operation of the business.
                Straight from the EEOC website. Of course, we're talking about Federal Law, so I'm sure there's about a million additional pages that cover sex discrimination and all the criteria and various loopholes to the law.

                Quite frankly, if they're putting it in writing that they're limiting hiring to a specific gender while only using something as vague as "diversity" for justification, I'd say they may as well buy a billboard that says "sue me" on it. Some lawyer will take it and at least get a settlement out of it.
                "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
                -Friedrich Nietzsche

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by L-1 View Post
                  It can be done to remedy a proven practice of discrimination and help restore parity in the workforce.

                  For example, up until around 1972 or 1973, the State of California flat out refused to accept applications from females for state peace officer positions. There was a disclaimer on exam announcements for such positions that read, "Due to the inherent dangers associated with the duties of a peace officer, applications from females will not be accepted for this position."

                  In order to remedy the problem, hiring preference based on gender was given in many state law enforcement agencies for some time thereafter.

                  There is an EEOC process for implementing the remedy, but I am unfamiliar with what it is. Again, prior discrimination must first be proven.

                  There is also another circumstance, but I don't believe it applies to your situation.

                  Previously I've mentioned hiring using the Rule of Three, where the appointing authority can fill a vacancy taking anyone from the top three scores on the hiring list, irrespective of which one is highest. Traditionally, it is illegal to discriminate in hiring because of race, religion, gender, etc, however, a many years old California court ruling held that does not apply with respect to the Rule of Three, that any decision made under that rule is completely discretionary on the appointing authority and the basis for a Rule of Three selection need not be disclosed.

                  The case involved three high scorers being considered for promotion, two of whom worked in the same office. Of those two, one was a male, the other was a female. The female, who scored lower than the male, was selected for the promotion. The male knew the person who decided who would get promoted and inquired why the decision was made to promote the lower scoring applicant over the higher scoring one. The response was that they based the decision solely on wanting to see more female supervisors in the unit.

                  The male sued, alleging he, as the higher scoring applicant, had been discriminated against because of his gender. The court ruled that under the Rule of Three, discretion the part of the appointing authority is absolute, even to the point of allowing them to base their decision solely on a factor that might otherwise be considered unlawful discrimination. The court further ruled that because the Rule of Three is discretionary, the basis for making any decisions under that rule need not be disclosed.
                  Back when I was working administration in the prison system we had a "weighted" list. Where the hiring list was heavy on whatever minority the specific prison was "low " on. The list was predicated on the US Census Statistical Area the prison was in and any county that touched that Statistical area.. This was a federally approved program to make our facility more diverse. And YES it was the result of a lawsuit. It was a PITA to work around

                  My old faculty was also the instigator of a lawsuit in the 70's that opened up Corrections to women nationwide.

                  Gunther v. Iowa State Men's Reformatory, 466 F. Supp. 367 (N.D. Iowa 1979)


                  For example the prison I worked in was near a major metropolitan area and was included in that Statistical Area. There was a large Cuba community in the metro area but virtually NO Cuban's in the county the prison was in. HOWEVER the interview list we received (20 people) was top heavy (5 names) with names of people with Cuban heritage and we were required to call the entire group for interviews. . We also were "low" on females so the list also included 10 females...........

                  Now, that only applied to the hiring list that we were given ...............we were free to hire who we wanted but we were required to contact everyone on that list for interviews........

                  There are many ways of hiring who you want LEGALLY
                  Last edited by Iowa #1603; 06-15-2018, 07:40 AM.
                  Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

                  My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Tell 'em you are gender Non-Binary. It's not like they are gonna make you show your weiner-gina-whatever-you-got..

                    The new world is awesome!!! ...
                    Related image
                    SUPPORT COP RUN BUSINESSES!!
                    SUPPORT LEO BUSINESSES!



                    In 2017, the sales of my LEO related decals allowed me to donate over $350. to LE/ Military related charities... THANK YOU!!! Check them out HERE...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

                      My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

                      Comment


                    • #12
                      Originally posted by Iowa #1603 View Post
                      W.T.F. Was that 2017? Can’t stuff like that be shot out of hand..?
                      Now go home and get your shine box!

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        ^^^ Where can I bulk order those plastic diapers? My department could use them for transporting suspects who have p*ssed or crapped themselves. They are more stylish than the trash bags we normally use...and the humiliation factor is a bonus.

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Originally posted by not.in.MY.town View Post
                          ^^^ Where can I bulk order those plastic diapers? D
                          I got that far and stopped reading , started laughing and sent the link for the order to your wife.

                          Not quite Depends........................but she will have a supply for you .
                          Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

                          My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            That 2017 picture is why we will never win another war, be the top dog country, or have any place in the food chain. In another 20-30 years, we will cease to be an independent country or Democracy.
                            Now go home and get your shine box!

                            Comment

                            MR300x250 Tablet

                            Collapse

                            What's Going On

                            Collapse

                            There are currently 6643 users online. 206 members and 6437 guests.

                            Most users ever online was 19,482 at 11:44 AM on 09-29-2011.

                            Welcome Ad

                            Collapse
                            Working...
                            X